Was there even really a sex scandal?

No.

Every article about his entry into the race is talking about. It's become the defining feature of his personality. He's known for this to the exclusion of practically everything else, except for the fanboys on Atlas who act like they just received manna from heaven.

I'll be doing backflips if he beats Quinn.

I'll be doing backflips if Quinn beats him. I seriously don't see what's so good about Weiner. That he has some entertaining YouTube videos? When I read about him, every story seems to be about the sexting scandal.

[there aren't necessarily very good reasons for that reaction]

1) Like homosexuality, it's one of those things where the stigma against it is primarily custom-based. People have a strong knee-jerk negative reaction to it, but there aren't necessarily very good reasons for that reaction.

Uhhhh... most guys can't support one wife and one child without Herculean effort.  If you want to see our welfare rolls explode and even more dysfunctional children then by all means encourage polygamy.

Time warp to the 1950's? Most wives today also can work, you know.

Uhhh... yeah.  Two income household.  TWO people sharing TWO salaries.  You start adding other women and a geometric increase in children and the guys end of bargain isn't just being split two ways, man.

This is an absurd argument man. For every mouth you add, you also add another hand.

You're making an argument for why Hasidic Judaism is economically infeasible... which as we all know is not true either.

[there aren't necessarily very good reasons for that reaction]

1) Like homosexuality, it's one of those things where the stigma against it is primarily custom-based. People have a strong knee-jerk negative reaction to it, but there aren't necessarily very good reasons for that reaction.

Uhhhh... most guys can't support one wife and one child without Herculean effort.  If you want to see our welfare rolls explode and even more dysfunctional children then by all means encourage polygamy.

Time warp to the 1950's? Most wives today also can work, you know.

Traditional polygamy is precisely what scares me about polygamy. You could easily have guys like Donald Trump buying up 50 wives from among lower class social climbers who groom their daughters to be picked off by patriarchs such as him. That leaves the lower class men with nothing. You see something like this in some villages in Vietnam where the girls are married off to Korean guys.

However, that's not the only model of polygamy. You could have one woman-multiple men, you could have three men, three women, two men and two men, et cetera. It works with any combination.

Polygamy can reinforce oppressive class and gender structures, but polygamy itself doesn't necessarily contain oppressive social structures within it, which is why I think a lot of liberals don't have a problem with it. Traditionally, the one man-multiple woman relation was predominant not only because of power relations but also presumably because of reproductive efficiency, with one penis being able to impregnate multiple wombs at once. However, in modern days it's above average if a woman has two children in her lifetime. Most people don't get married to reproduce. So theoretically there should be more diversity.

Search for my posts on polygamy here and you'll see that I've long thought it's going to follow in the footsteps of homosexuality as the next big social acceptance movement. (You'll also see my own apprehensions about it, but leaving that aside for now). Here are my arguments for why in 20-30 years, it's going to be the next big issue

1) Like homosexuality, it's one of those things where the stigma against it is primarily custom-based. People have a strong knee-jerk negative reaction to it, but there aren't necessarily very good reasons for that reaction.
2) The biggest substantive arguments against it are practical (i.e., who gets the kids when there's a split, etc. and the fact that splits become statistically more likely the more people you get)
3) Like homosexuality, it's a matter of personal freedom. The trend has been towards more personal freedom on social lifestyle and sexual issues.
4) Like homosexuality, it has the "none of your business/if we're not hurting you, why do you care?" argument supporting it. It's hard to argue against. If you have a polygamist group that claims they're happy together, it's very hard for an outsider to say, "No. You're not happy. I know you better than you know yourselves."
5) Apply the legal arguments about "state interest" brought up to support the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 to polygamy. As with the case of homosexuality, it's very hard to show a state interest in preventing wedded unions of more than two people.
6) Most forward-thinking liberal people I know seem to have little to no problem with it.
7) Ultra-conservatives will not necessarily be displeased with it either, although some religious conservatives will probably oppose it.
8 ) We are beginning to see an increase in the acceptance of polygamy already.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162689/record-high-say-gay-lesbian-relations-morally.aspx
It's gone from "adultery" levels to "cloning" levels. So it still has a long way to go. This isn't going to happen overnight. But it will happen.

Most defeated losers had no real impact. People like Bryan and Goldwater created legacies because of their winning primary campaigns. McGovern had done his damage by the '72 general and his campaign was completely irrelevant.

Gun deaths are rising as percentage of the murder rate.

You got a cite for that, all I find is "gun crime falling" and "gun crime has plunged, Americans are unaware of it" and "Chicago's Murder Rate, don't blame guns alone".

[/quote]

While crime is down, gunshot fatalities are actually slightly up over the past several years. This is an entirely new trend- for the previous 30 years, gunshot fatalities and overall crime rates tracked each other closely. Now they're decoupling.

That doesn't match up with what I've seen, cite?

Number of murders by year since 1960
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Fatal injury by firearm reports by year since 1981
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html

Prior to 2000, if one statistic rose, the other did as well, except for 1984. Since 2007, firearm deaths were up 3 out of 4 years, whereas the number of murders were down every year. From 1981 to 2010, the number of murders was down 34%, but the number of firearm fatalities is down only 7%. From 2006 (when NSSF-adjusted NICS began shooting up) until 2010, the number of murders is down 13%, but the number of firearm fatalities is actually up 2.5%. The same goes for nonfatal firearm injuries- they trended slightly higher during the decade 2001-2011 despite the fall of the murder rate.

These factors might be explained by such things as an increased number of suicides using firearms, an increased number of accidents, an increased proportion of murders being committed with firearms, or an increased number of legally 'justified' firearm injuries, such as would have occurred in the death of Trayvon Martin. Looking at the difference between firearm death & injury versus the overall murder rate allows us to separate firearm injury from other factors that might be contributing to a decline in the crime rate. However, these numbers are quite delayed; it's frustrating that they have nothing more recent than 2010 on firearm deaths. Also, the numbers are not super dramatic here.

Well it ain't this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgJC4Pu_tbo

Argentina 1976 is often cited as the upper-most limit in terms of per capita GDP that a country has ever reached whilist at the same time experiencing a collapse in democratic rule, according to modernization theory.

Dude, I thought you were joking.

You may be onto something. But don't let China off the hook. Let's face it. When Obama came into office he tried to act like Bill Clinton and thought he could pursue engagement with China. But the Chinese saw the U.S. financial crisis and suddenly started to think they could run with the big boys. The media fluff about a new reserve currency and G-2 and whatnot from circa 2009 got to their heads. When Obama went to Shanghai they humiliated him, not even bothering to broadcast his summit on T.V., as they did with Clinton in 1998. Then they humiliated him again at Copenhagen, effectively scuttling climate change action during his administration. Then, they started sabre rattling against ASEAN, whereas up until that point they had built up considerable goodwill in ASEAN. Obama had to put them in their place.

I'm curuios to see how the gun control crowd will spin this... who am I kidding, it will be much easier to ignore.

Gun deaths are rising as percentage of the murder rate. In other words, the non-gun factors that determine crime rates are moving in the right direction, whereas the gun factors are moving in the wrong direction. Undoubtedly the murder rate would have fallen even faster if not for guns.

This is much bigger (and more international) than one number suggests. In fact crime rates have been falling across the industrialized world, and the general rate of violence has been falling since the last crisis period (1914-45). Steve Pinker has been writing about this since 2011. Nor is it, according to Pinker, the return to some "pre-urban" ideal; in fact U.S. crime rates fell steadily from the 1850s, at least, for a century. The 1960s-80s were an aberration to the general pattern that we are now seeing returned. The current stereotype that urban areas are more violent than rural areas may also be an aberration; after all, in large cities with lights and lots of people around, there is less opportunity to commit crime and get away with it. In a rural area with hardly anyone around there is arguably more. Most urban crime these days revolves around gangs that mostly kill each other. The old myth of the rich yuppie getting mugged in Times Square or girl getting raped in an alley by a total stranger is actually quite uncommon.

The Japanese revanchists really should bring it on. The U.S. and China will renew their ancient alliance and squash Japan like a bug.

This looks increasingly brutal. This doesn't even see like the 1955-1994. The JSP at least put up token resistance. The DPJ seems to have just completely dissipated.

I don't know why Abe's approval ratings are so incredibly high. I despise almost every policy he's enacted and yet I still kind of approve of him. Is the water drugged or something for all of us?

I approve of him too, but for the opposite reasons. His reforms are critically necessary; in fact they're the most dramatic hopeful news to come out of Japan in 20 years (which is my entire lifetime of being aware of such things). Aggressive QE and inflation targeting is what Paul Krugman has been advocating for years.

Abe's policies have only one potential risk and one downside. The only risk is that they fail to get enacted due to resistance from entrenched interests, such as the farmers (a bond market dislocation is an ever-present risk, but I don't see it as playing out from a theoretical perspective at the moment). The only downside is that they're being implemented by a right-wing government. It's a shame that it's now being enacted by a right-winger instead of the DPJ government which had a chance to enact them; and that the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster happened under the DPJ instead of Abe.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21578052-shinzo-abe-shaking-up-japans-economy-seems-different-man-one-whose-previous

Anyway, back to discussion about the election.

Starwatcher, I don't think HRC 08 ignored Iowa; they competed (with HRC visiting every county) and lost. After deputy campaign manager Mike Henry's memo advocating skipping Iowa was leaked, the campaign was forced to double down in Iowa.

That was my point. She was planning on skipping it, decided to go in at the last second, and lost.

The Henry memo came out in May. It didn't come out "at the last second."

The Henry memo was arguing for a change in the campaign's strategy. At the time the memo was leaked, the campaign's plan was to contest Iowa. The leaking of the memo didn't force the campaign into Iowa; it merely precluded changing course.

The Clinton campaign heavily contested Iowa from start to finish. She was never planning on skipping it.

I like Reed more although Schweitzer has a better chance of winning.

Not bad for a Republican.  His bluntness is entertaining and often refreshing, but I probably wouldn't vote to make him POTUS.

Pretty much this. He's still a pretty conservative Republican, all things considered. But if the Dems nominate an utter nightmare I'd be tempted to sit it out.

Mr. Morden's comments here are the only ones consistently worth reading now. I still remember when this forum was practically full of Mr. Mordens.

Starwatcher, I don't think HRC 08 ignored Iowa; they competed (with HRC visiting every county) and lost. After deputy campaign manager Mike Henry's memo advocating skipping Iowa was leaked, the campaign was forced to double down in Iowa. At one point they were ahead. However, this momentum was reversed after the October 15 debate, the Jefferson-Jackson day dinner, and critically, Oprah's endorsement of Obama.

Obama's strength in other caucus states was not just an organizational decision, but, IMHO, an outgrowth of the nature of the candidate himself. He inspired a lot of activist enthusiasm and this made it much easier to build up a bulkier ground game with more offices, to raise money to fund these offices, to get volunteers, and to increase caucus turnout, since caucuses are good at capturing relatively smaller numbers of voters who have a higher commitment to the candidate.

This is what Libertarians want America to look like, and they don't even know it.

No, not really. The building posed a threat to neighboring buildings, and other individuals’ lives. According to most Libertarians (with the anarchists and the hardcore Objectivists being excluded) the individual’s rights only extend to the point that preserves their own life without threatening the life of somebody else.

But didn't those individuals negotiate their rights in libertarian logic, by agreeing to employment there? Who would be doing the law enforcement in libertarian society, by the way?

Yes, if they saw the place falling apart, then they shouldn't have worked there. Everyone needs to eat, however and they took the risk everyday for that reason. It is certainly not their fault that they are dead, of course-don’t misconstrue that as blame. The buildings collapse threatened neighbors not connected with the factory at all, and is where the crime is in my opinion.

As for law enforcement, that belongs to the state. In fact, that is the entire purpose of the state.

Arguments like this are why libertarianism will never work. This is the textbook example of something no one would say except as a misguided attempt to fit the facts into their program.

All of this is based on the assumption anyway that the NoKoreans are able to launch missiles that won't be picked off by defense systems beforehand. Most NK missiles are lucky to even get off the ground, let alone travel halfway around the world to accurately deliver a nuke.

When is the last time the U.S. has picked off a North Korean missile, or for that matter any foreign missile? Name one time.

And dead0man: That's a fine point, but let's keep in mind the North Korean payloads have been increasing with each successive test, 2006, 2009 and 2013. No one's saying this a threat we face today; it's a threat we face 5-10 years down the road.

SEOUL, South Korea — For 20 years, fears about North Korea’s headlong pursuit of nuclear bombs have been watered down with smirking admonishments not to overestimate an impoverished dictatorship prone to bragging and tantrums.

Few are laughing now.

After three nuclear tests of apparently increasing power and a long-range rocket launch that puts it a big step closer to having a missile that can carry a nuclear warhead to American shores, many believe that in a matter of years — as little as five, maybe, though the timeframe is a point of debate — Pyongyang will have a very scary nuclear arsenal.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/10/weve-underestimated-them-new-sense-of-urgency-about-north-koreas-nuclear-pursuits/

Also, keep in mind that I've already conceded to the most ultra-conservative estimates, as defined by you. In reality, North Korea likely has a lot more than 3 warheads:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/north-korea-nuclear-weapons_n_3251870.html?utm_hp_ref=world&utm_hp_ref=world

Here's how one prominent analyst sees the future of Pyongyang's atomic arsenal. North Korea's leaders have been closely studying their nuclear history, and Pakistan, which helped Pyongyang's nascent nuclear program and which built its own atomic arsenal outside international treaties, is probably an inspiration, said Hahm Chaibong, president of the conservative Asan Institute in Seoul.

With that model in mind, the goal then could be a "minimum operational nuclear capability" of 80 to 100 nuclear missiles, including some that could reach the United States, Hahm estimated. The weapons would be hidden around the country to prevent detection, in caves, tunnels, amid conventional missile stockpiles, in dense population centers and on mobile launchers, Hahm said in an interview. He speculated that such an effort could take five to 10 years.

One hundred warheads in five years is probably alarmist, Matthew Kroenig, a nuclear expert at Georgetown University, wrote in an email, but "it would be naive to assume that Pyongyang will keep a small and primitive arsenal forever. Rather, it is likely that they will rapidly move to expand their arsenal and means of delivery."

Note that this isn't my personal estimate, it's the one this experts has come up with.

Once North Korea develops the long-range missile re-entry capability of warhead delivery, there is no limit to how many rockets it could build. Let's take a mid-point between the estimate given above, and a minimum of zero, and suppose NK eventually builds 40 nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Now we're talking about 40 million, rather than 5 million. Either way, it's certainly comparable to a Soviet strike circa 1985.

Having Seattle, SF and LA nuked would obviously suck huge ass, but it would be substantially less devestating than all out war with SU/Russia would be.  The former would be more like a really really bad 9-11, it's going to hurt, bad, but it wouldn't even be the end of those cities, much less the end of us.  The latter would put the human race in the ropes. 

I know conventional wisdom says that 3 nukes on the west coast means everybody west of Denver that was lucky enough to survive the blasts would no doubt be mutants or dead from radiation poison.  The facts are very different from that.

Are you kidding? Only 2,500 people on 9/11. That's nothing. The population of L.A. alone is 3.8 million. That's not even counting the metro area, with a population of 12.5 million. So even if only people in the city proper died and everyone in the metro area survived (unlikely given the radioactive fallout), that would still be 1,500 times worse than 9/11. Now let's add the San Francisco population of 800,000 and the Seattle population of 600,000. We're assuming the North Koreans only have 3 nuclear ICBMs (they could easily have more) and the weapons are so weak that only the cities proper and destroyed, with no additional accounting for radioactive fallout.
The total casualty count is 3,800,000 + 800,000 + 600,000 = 5,200,000.
Now let's compare this with the great events of U.S. History

9/11 - Equivalent of 2,080 9/11's
The Iraq War - Equivalent of 1,468 Iraq War's
The Vietnam war - Equivalent of 110 Vietnam War's
World War II - Equivalent of 18 World War II's
Total American Wars - Equivalent of Six Times the total casualty count in all wars in U.S. history combined.

So basically, think of any episode in U.S., any historical event deemed to be a crisis or a serious matter (war being generally agreed to be the worst). Now take the most serious possible, out of all of those.

This is at least six times worse than all of them combined. It's actually more than that, because nuclear strikes also render vast amounts of territory to be uninhabitable, whereas wars would not. Also, nuclear strikes destroy the entire physical infrastructure of an area more comprehensively than wars do. The Eiffel Tower, St. Peter's Cathedral, and Big Ben are still standing even though battles were fought over these cities in World War II. However, in the case of a nuclear strike, every bit of Hollywood, for instance, would be wiped out.

Additionally, many U.S. casualties in wars were sustained by troops that went overseas to fight. While their deaths are tragic, they occurred on foreign soil and not U.S. soil. The mass death of millions of people on U.S. soil, particularly civilians, is not something the U.S. has seen since the civil war, and on the scale we are talking about, really never.

Basically every thread on this forum, is moot compared to this issue.

Now compare to threat with the Soviet Union circa 1982. The US population in the 1980 census was deemed at 200 million. Now let's say in the worst case scenario, the Soviet first strike is extremely effective and manages to take out every single American (highly unlikely, particularly since U.S. ballistic missile submarines were already deployed then 24/7 specifically designed to retaliate against such a strike). Sure, this is orders of magnitude worse than 5 million dying, by a magnitude of 40. However, it wouldn't be the end of North American civilization, let alone the end of the human race.

A magnitude of 40 is a lot less than a magnitude of 2,000 which separate the scenario I'm talking about from 9-11. So if anything, it's your analogy which is problematic, my comparison is actually a lot better than yours.

According to wikipedia, "Bangladeshi news media reported that inspectors had discovered cracks in the building the day before and had requested evacuation and closure. The shops and the bank on the lower floors immediately closed, but garment workers were forced to return the following day, their supervisors declaring the building to be safe. Managers at Ether Tex threatened to withhold a month's pay from workers who refused to come to work."

LOL, how can a comparison be factually wrong when no facts were even asserted, except ones that haven't been disputed? I treat 10 million people on the West Coast being wiped out and 100 million people on all coasts being wiped out similarly. Both of them fall into the category of "worst possible scenario" to me.

You said that North Korea could be "as much of a threat" as the USSR. This is absurd. Do you really think the consequences of a massive 1,000+ missile strike on the USA by the USSR circa 1985 is "just as bad" as two or three strikes on the West Coast?

I think they're both so unthinkably bad that arguing about which one is worse is missing the point by a mile. There's a limit to how, psychologically, utterly terrified a person can be, and the thought of Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles being wiped out already takes me to the limit. The addition of NYC, Chicago and Washington D.C. can't push me any further.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZV_lIwmz5E

This does nothing to validate your point. The threat posed by North Korea is not at all comparable to the threat posed by the USSR. That was an absurd comparison you made and it is factually wrong.

LOL, how can a comparison be factually wrong when no facts were even asserted, except ones that haven't been disputed? I treat 10 million people on the West Coast being wiped out and 100 million people on all coasts being wiped out similarly. Both of them fall into the category of "worst possible scenario" to me.

[they'll be as much of a threat to the U.S. as the Soviet Union was during it's heydey]

As noted above, the Pentagon readily admits that North Korea will eventually have the ability to deliver ICBMs. That means they'll be as much of a threat to the U.S. as the Soviet Union was during it's heydey.

This is just silly.

All because North Korea could launch a couple ICBMS at a few areas on the West Coast
...
You're really being an alarmist on this whole North Korea issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZV_lIwmz5E